What's Your Opinion on a Design Ideas Forum?

Design News has a highly creative, intelligent, and innovative audience.

The more I read and respond to comments on the stories posted on our site, the more impressed I am with you, our readers, and your knowledge. Many audience members not only have theoretical knowledge in the areas they've trained in to track down problems, but also the kind of practical, hands-on experience that makes it possible to fix washing machines or re-engineer a lawnmower. We see both in the Sherlock Ohms and Made by Monkeys columns.

But I also see readers make creative, interesting comments on posts that go beyond immediate concerns, along the lines of "what would happen if you combined this feature or technology over here to solve a design problem with that entirely different other product class over there." For instance, in my recent article, 3D Printing & Robots at MD&M West, a thread started during a discussion about Rethink Robotics' Baxter, mentioned in the article as being designed from the ground up to be safer around humans. Readers were discussing various methods of making robots sense that a human was present or nearby, not a part to be picked up, so the robot would not run into the human or harm them in any way.

One reader commented:

I wonder if the flesh-sensing technology used in saws (i.e. table saws) would be able to be integrated into the 'skin' of a robot to help it identify humans. Since the saw companies are resisting using the technology, perhaps the robot industry would be able to incorporate it.

That kind of cross-platform creative thinking reminded me of the best of Silicon Valley-style innovation, which is where we got the now overused, but once illuminating, phrase "thinking outside the box."

As it turned out, other readers chimed in with some experience about that SawStop technology and the result is it may not make sense for robots. But that's important to know. It's especially helpful to know why, so engineers can make up their own minds and decide if the trade-offs are worthwhile, or if perhaps the technology could be applied in other designs.

For example, one reader said the SawStop technology has a sensing mechanism that wouldn't work around humans, an expensive reset process, and a tendency toward false stops. Another said SawStop has licensing fees, presumably expensive ones, and pointed out one reason it may not have caught on in the power tool industry was the need for retooling.

What if this was an idea that would work in this application? Maybe Rethink Robotics has already thought of it, but maybe they haven't. Or maybe one of their competitors would be interested in this idea. But all the potentially great ideas like this tend to get buried on the comment boards.

So I'd like to propose a forum on Design News that focuses on innovative, problem-solving design ideas where individual engineers and companies like robot manufacturers can trade comments and suggestions like these. What do you think? What are your ideas about how this could or should work? Please give us your suggestions in the comments section below about how to pull these ideas together, and what kind of forum it should be.

ttemple, you're right that some DN articles are product-oriented or contain product information, and they should be, since that's one of the reasons why engineers have historically read technical magazines: to bring useful and interesting new products to light. But in a typical technical publication, articles can display a range of focus on products or product details, depending on whether they are news or analysis, and whether they are contributed by a manufacturer, or staff-written.

Thanks for your feedback, Dave. Interesting observation about Japanese vs US companies. I've found the opposite to be broadly true when interviewing companies about their technology: Japanese companies have been far less likely to want to be interviewed in the first place and if they do agree, are much less forthcoming. Over time (since the late 80s) the gap has shrunk but I think it's still there. Considering that reluctance, I've been surprised at how forthcoming they can be at technical conferences.

OLD_CURMUDGEON, thanks for the additional thoughts on this topic, and for bringing it up in the first place. I tend to agree with Tom-R's thoughts on the matter. I think a lot depends on picking the right model to fit the target goal. I agree about teamwork--when applied to appropriate goals and executed correctly, it can be extremely productive.

Tom-R, thanks for your feedback. The network of known subject experts is an interesting version of crowdsourcing. The open forum we're discussing is meant to be a lot looser, but has similar goals. Thanks also for the clear discussion of trade secrets issues, and the suggestion about offline contacts: excellent suggestions.

Ann: I don't know that it WOULD be a problem, but with children suing their parents over trivial matters, and with out super-litigious society in general now, it MAY be something for one to keep in the back of their mind..... that's ALL I was suggesting. Of course it's a good thing when scientific minds can collaborate & share technical ideas amongst their peers, but it would be a real shame IF someone were to become liable for a contribution due to an overzealous "ambulance chaser" type.

In my earlier decades' design role, we always worked on large-scale projects as a team. Even technicians were brought into the collaboration, not only to learn, but also to be an active part in the design process. These groups worked well, and the products' that became "alive" served their purpose well for many years.

Nancy, thanks for all those specific suggestions and excellent questions. Just what we're lookiing for at this stage. And thanks to Warren for a good example of why crowd-sourcing one's experiential database in a forum like this one can be a good idea.

Ceylon0, that may not be as far off as one might think, based on what I've seen in nanodevices, self-assembling devices and programmable materials (and BTW that was my slideshow). But--please hold that thought!

OLD_CURMUDGEON, thanks for raising that issue. But I don't see why that would be any more a problem here than on the comment boards we already have. The whole point is a free expression of ideas and the purpose is to aid in better designs and solve new and challenging design problems. So it would be expected that some of the ideas would be adopted by readers in their work. I think it's highly unlikely any ideas discussed here would be specific enough to be patentable.

There is an old adage, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." I beg to differ, but I do think "There is no such thing as a bad idea."

Years ago I was developing a scanning laser ophthalmoscope for Coopervision and the subject of using the 633nm HeNe for doing graphics came up. I thought it was a bad idea and a waste of time. Little did I know it became the most useful function of the instrument.

There may be stupid questions, but I don't see any bad ideas. It just may not be their time, yet (flying cars, personal helicopters, transporters, warp drive...)

Instead of sifting through huge amounts of technical data looking for answers to assembly problems, engineers can now benefit from 3M's new initiative -- 3M Assembly Solutions. The company has organized its wealth of adhesive and tape solutions into six typical application areas, making it easier to find the best products to solve their real-world assembly and bonding problems.

Many of the materials in this slideshow are resins or elastomers, plus reinforced materials, styrenics, and PLA masterbatches. Applications range from automotive and aerospace to industrial, consumer electronics and wearables, consumer goods, medical and healthcare, as well as sporting goods, and materials for protecting food and beverages.

Engineers trying to keep track of the ever-ballooning number of materials and machines for additive manufacturing and 3D printing now have some relief: a free searchable database with more than 350 machines and 450 different materials.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.